Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_12_18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM “C” OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK NEW YORK DECEMBER 18, 2019 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim (Alternate) Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:17 P.M. Application # 1 - CASE # 3169 - Joseph & Lauren Belisle - 9 Crescent Road - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill Paige Lewis, the applicant’s architect, addressed the Board along with the owner Lauren Belisle. Ms. Brill stated that the matter was duly noticed. Ms. Lewis explained the proposal and showed existing and proposed plans for the front vestibule and steps and the second-floor addition. She further explained that the new vestibule would extend into the front yard for protection from rain when entering the house and the second floor addition is for an extra bedroom. Ms. Lewis stated that because this is a small nonconforming lot, they stepped down to the lower zone district. Mr. Sacks asked if the garage will be changed and Ms. Belisle stated that it is to remain for storage as it does not accommodate today’s larger cars. The impact of the second-floor dormer was discussed. Ms. Lewis gave a rendering to the Board which was entered into the record marked Exhibit 1-12- 18-19. There were no public comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh 1 Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 9 Crescent Road After review, on motion of Steve Marsh, seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Joseph and Lauren Belisle (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for an addition and deck on the premises located at 9 Crescent Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 20, Lot 34; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor addition will have a front yard of 24.3 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), the steps as proposed will have a front yard of 19.8 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R- Zone District. (the “Notice of Disapproval”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the 2 architectural details are compatible with the existing house and the increased size is consistent with nearby houses. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the house is pre- existing, non-conforming so any expansion would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because most of the increased bulk will be on top of the existing foundation with a small protrusion into the required front yard. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the proposed increase in impervious surface is very small. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. MINUTES: All Board members stated that they received and reviewed a copy of the draft minutes. Motion: To approve the minutes of October 23, 2019 Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Arthur Wexler Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed a proposal to amend the Town’s rock removal requirements. Ms. Nichinsky asked if this is being driven by one person complaining. Mr. Marsh stated that 90% of the jobs do not chip rock for an entire day between 9am and 6pm because most contractors work between 8am and 4pm. He suggested that reducing hours should address neighbors’ concerns. He further stated that he believes allowing drilling first outside the rock removal time frame would also help, as drilling would eliminate overcut. Ms. O’Neill stated that people have complained about damage and asked whether there has actually been any damage. A survey of the adjoining homes was discussed. Ms. Hochman stated the Planning Board was also asked to opine on the proposal and one Board member offered to sum up the Planning Board members’ comments. Board members expressed concern that this will push people to blast rather than chip away rock. Mr. Marsh stated that the existing code has worked well for the past 2 years. ADOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill _____________________________ Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 4 5